John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Waste Tire Recycling, Abatement, and Disposal Act of 1997. This is really a reintroduction of legislation I first offered in 1991 to address a very serious environmental hazard. What is that hazard I am talking about? It is the very real threat posed by improper disposal and stockpiling of used tires. Unfortunately, the threat posed by improper management of used, scrap tires is as great or greater than when I first introduced this legislation some 6 years ago. The scope of the waste tire problem is enormous. Americans generate approximately--think of this--250 million scrap tires per year. That is a tire per person in the United States of America that is disposed of. Over time, approximately 3 billion--not million, 3 billion--of these tires have accumulated in the surface stockpiles throughout our country. These used tires pose real threats to the health and welfare of communities. They are places where water is collected, thus mosquitoes breed, some of them encephalitis-carrying mosquitoes. They provide a home for rodents. They are bad news. The threats proposed by piles of tires are great also. Few things are worse as far as fires go than to have a pile of rubber tires catch on fire. These can start from lightning or they can start from acts of vandalism. Burning tire piles produce a dense toxic smoke and also produce the oil byproducts that have gone into the making of the tires, and thus we have toxic hydrocarbon compounds. The hydrocarbons so released can soil the air, can soil the soil and, more important, can contaminate surface water and ground water. Often the piles of tires and the fires that result can burn for months and cost millions of dollars to attempt to extinguish. Putting out the fire may just be the tip of the iceberg as there have been released enough toxic substances that, as I say, go into the ground water and cause tremendous problems. In my State of Rhode Island, the threat from tire piles is not just an abstraction. Smithfield, RI, is the reluctant host of a tire dump that reportedly is the second largest in the United States. Estimates of the size vary, but the so-called Davis tire pile is thought by our Department of Environmental Management to contain 10 million scrapped tires. This tire pile is close to our reservoir. It is only 4 miles from the principal source of drinking water in our State, the Scituate Reservoir. A major fire at the site could foul the reservoir through a fallout from dense soot and by contamination of the ground water aquifers. Nationwide, waste tires are still accumulating in large stockpiles. Why? What happens? Where is the end of this? Well, why have the tire piles grown? There are several reasons. First, landfills are reluctant to accept scrap tires. Second, the nature of modern steel-belted radial tires makes it very difficult to recycle these into new ones. Once upon a time, old tires were retreaded, as we all know. You cannot do that with radial tires. The third reason is that the other markets for the beneficial reuse of this material have been slow to emerge. Scrap tires have some value. They contain a lot of Btu's, more Btu's per pound than most grades of coal and can be burned to produce electricity. Many folks operating tire dumps are hoping for higher energy prices so that there will be a windfall for these scrapped tires. However, there is significant opposition to new waste combustion facilities across our country. There is a reluctance to have these waste combustion facilities in one's community. So combustion seems now a less likely option to solve the tire problem. And finally, where there are beneficial uses for scrap tires, the processors like what they call clean tires, ones that do not have dirt or rocks or gravel in them. The waste tire management program that is contained in my legislation has three purposes. What am I trying to do? First, to assure that scrap tires are managed in a way that reduces the risk of fires and spread of disease. Second, the bill would require the elimination of waste tire dumps within 4 years after enactment. It requires that the 3 billion tires in stockpiles across our country be recycled or burned or shredded or buried by the end of the year 2006. And finally, the management program is intended to encourage markets for recycled material from tires. Now, all of this would take place as an amendment to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, so-called RCRA, with which we are familiar in this body and is already legislation for the Nation. The traditional partnership program between EPA and RCRA through the States will lead to implementation of this program. In other words, it is a partnership between EPA and the States. The bill encourages States to adopt a program to safely manage existing tire piles. The bill authorizes grants to States to develop and implement State programs to manage these piles of tires. The bill will limit disease and fire problems. The fire threat will be reduced by including specifications for the size and spacing of these tire piles into smaller, more manageable units, separate them out so that if a fire does start, it does not spread to the entire dump of tires. It also requires provisions that waste tire dumps like the Davis site in my State are closed and the scrap tires shredded and recycled and safely disposed of within 4 years of enactment. So this could take place as soon as the year 2001. Other scrap tire stockpiles that are operating legally under a State permit will have until the year 2006, as I mentioned. So all this is accomplished by imposing a 50-cent tax per tire, truck and passenger, on those manufactured or imported into the United States. It just applies to new tires. I want to inform my colleagues that this legislation, once enacted, will solve several solid waste management problems. So I urge my colleagues to join in the support of this. As I noted earlier, Rhode Island is host to a site with approximately 10 million of these tires. It has been called the most serious environmental threat to our State. Even after some 250,000 have been removed in order to get at a Superfund site that is underneath these tires, a toxic waste disposal site that was then subsequently covered over by these tires, and even after the State removed some 1.2 million more tires, there still will be 8 million tires left in this Davis site. The threat posed by that is a very real one to my State, as I previously pointed out. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. It can prevent environmental disasters from taking place. As chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I will exert every effort to see that these bills become law. I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. He is very familiar with this because they have somewhat the same problem, perhaps not in the same magnitude as we have in our State, and they have a tire-shredding program in Oxford, CT. So, Mr. President, I send to the desk two bills to accomplish my goal. One includes the tax, the other includes the cleanup efforts. Accompanying this is a summary of these bills.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Waste Tire Recycling, Abatement, and Disposal Act of 1997. This is really a reintroduction of legislation I first offered in 1991 to address a very serious environmental hazard. What is that hazard I am talking about? It is the very real threat posed by improper disposal and stockpiling of used tires. Unfortunately, the threat posed by improper management of used, scrap tires is as great or greater than when I first introduced this legislation some 6 years ago. The scope of the waste tire problem is enormous. Americans generate approximately--think of this--250 million scrap tires per year. That is a tire per person in the United States of America that is disposed of. Over time, approximately 3 billion--not million, 3 billion--of these tires have accumulated in the surface stockpiles throughout our country. These used tires pose real threats to the health and welfare of communities. They are places where water is collected, thus mosquitoes breed, some of them encephalitis-carrying mosquitoes. They provide a home for rodents. They are bad news. The threats proposed by piles of tires are great also. Few things are worse as far as fires go than to have a pile of rubber tires catch on fire. These can start from lightning or they can start from acts of vandalism. Burning tire piles produce a dense toxic smoke and also produce the oil byproducts that have gone into the making of the tires, and thus we have toxic hydrocarbon compounds. The hydrocarbons so released can soil the air, can soil the soil and, more important, can contaminate surface water and ground water. Often the piles of tires and the fires that result can burn for months and cost millions of dollars to attempt to extinguish. Putting out the fire may just be the tip of the iceberg as there have been released enough toxic substances that, as I say, go into the ground water and cause tremendous problems. In my State of Rhode Island, the threat from tire piles is not just an abstraction. Smithfield, RI, is the reluctant host of a tire dump that reportedly is the second largest in the United States. Estimates of the size vary, but the so-called Davis tire pile is thought by our Department of Environmental Management to contain 10 million scrapped tires. This tire pile is close to our reservoir. It is only 4 miles from the principal source of drinking water in our State, the Scituate Reservoir. A major fire at the site could foul the reservoir through a fallout from dense soot and by contamination of the ground water aquifers. Nationwide, waste tires are still accumulating in large stockpiles. Why? What happens? Where is the end of this? Well, why have the tire piles grown? There are several reasons. First, landfills are reluctant to accept scrap tires. Second, the nature of modern steel-belted radial tires makes it very difficult to recycle these into new ones. Once upon a time, old tires were retreaded, as we all know. You cannot do that with radial tires. The third reason is that the other markets for the beneficial reuse of this material have been slow to emerge. Scrap tires have some value. They contain a lot of Btu's, more Btu's per pound than most grades of coal and can be burned to produce electricity. Many folks operating tire dumps are hoping for higher energy prices so that there will be a windfall for these scrapped tires. However, there is significant opposition to new waste combustion facilities across our country. There is a reluctance to have these waste combustion facilities in one's community. So combustion seems now a less likely option to solve the tire problem. And finally, where there are beneficial uses for scrap tires, the processors like what they call clean tires, ones that do not have dirt or rocks or gravel in them. The waste tire management program that is contained in my legislation has three purposes. What am I trying to do? First, to assure that scrap tires are managed in a way that reduces the risk of fires and spread of disease. Second, the bill would require the elimination of waste tire dumps within 4 years after enactment. It requires that the 3 billion tires in stockpiles across our country be recycled or burned or shredded or buried by the end of the year 2006. And finally, the management program is intended to encourage markets for recycled material from tires. Now, all of this would take place as an amendment to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, so-called RCRA, with which we are familiar in this body and is already legislation for the Nation. The traditional partnership program between EPA and RCRA through the States will lead to implementation of this program. In other words, it is a partnership between EPA and the States. The bill encourages States to adopt a program to safely manage existing tire piles. The bill authorizes grants to States to develop and implement State programs to manage these piles of tires. The bill will limit disease and fire problems. The fire threat will be reduced by including specifications for the size and spacing of these tire piles into smaller, more manageable units, separate them out so that if a fire does start, it does not spread to the entire dump of tires. It also requires provisions that waste tire dumps like the Davis site in my State are closed and the scrap tires shredded and recycled and safely disposed of within 4 years of enactment. So this could take place as soon as the year 2001. Other scrap tire stockpiles that are operating legally under a State permit will have until the year 2006, as I mentioned. So all this is accomplished by imposing a 50-cent tax per tire, truck and passenger, on those manufactured or imported into the United States. It just applies to new tires. I want to inform my colleagues that this legislation, once enacted, will solve several solid waste management problems. So I urge my colleagues to join in the support of this. As I noted earlier, Rhode Island is host to a site with approximately 10 million of these tires. It has been called the most serious environmental threat to our State. Even after some 250,000 have been removed in order to get at a Superfund site that is underneath these tires, a toxic waste disposal site that was then subsequently covered over by these tires, and even after the State removed some 1.2 million more tires, there still will be 8 million tires left in this Davis site. The threat posed by that is a very real one to my State, as I previously pointed out. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. It can prevent environmental disasters from taking place. As chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I will exert every effort to see that these bills become law. I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. He is very familiar with this because they have somewhat the same problem, perhaps not in the same magnitude as we have in our State, and they have a tire-shredding program in Oxford, CT. So, Mr. President, I send to the desk two bills to accomplish my goal. One includes the tax, the other includes the cleanup efforts. Accompanying this is a summary of these bills.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to commemorate the seventh annual celebration of National Sportsmanship Day, which took place on March 5. Designed to promote ethics, integrity, and good sportsmanship in athletics, National Sportsmanship Day was established by the Institute for International Sport at the University of Rhode Island. This year, over 8000 schools in all 50 States and 75 countries overseas participated in National Sportsmanship Day. There seems to be no shortage of stories about assaults on referees, players, and even press photographers. I am particularly pleased, therefore, that the Institute for International Sport tackled the issue of violence in sports head-on. As part of National Sportsmanship Day, the Institute held a day-long town meeting where athletes, coaches, journalists, students, and educators engaged in a lengthy discussion about the causes and possible solutions for violence on the playing field. I think that the Institute's work to foster this kind of dialogue among our young people is critical. In addition to the town meeting, the Institute for International Sport also sponsored an essay contest in which students wrote and shared their views on good sportsmanship, fair play, and courtesy on the playing field. Several winning essays were published in USA Today and the Providence Journal Bulletin, and I ask that they be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. Another key component of National Sportsmanship Day is the Student- Athlete Outreach Program. This program encourages high schools and colleges to send talented student-athletes to local elementary and middle schools to promote good sportsmanship and serve as positive role models. These students help young people build self-esteem, respect for physical fitness, and an appreciation for the value of teamwork. I remain very proud that National Sportsmanship Day was initiated in Rhode Island, and I applaud the students and teachers who participated in this inspiring event. Likewise, I congratulate all of those at the Institute for International Sport, whose hard work and dedication over the last 7 years have made this program so successful. The material follows: [From the Providence Journal-Bulletin, Mar. 4, 1997] Whether They Realize It or Not, National Athletes Are Role Models (By Steven E. Sylven, Jr.) Sportsmanship. Today, it seems to be as valuable as my `86 Escort, which died a month ago. Is it any wonder though? Look around at some of the players in any of the pro leagues. You'll find guys who headbutt officials, spit on umpires, throw towels at their coaches, and kick cameramen. These ``professional'' athletes just ooze with sportsmanship and set a great example for kids don't they? Some of these players say they don't want to be considered role models; that children should not look toward them as one. Well, news flash fellas, you are role models. There is no getting around this because you are professional athletes and are forever in the spotlight. Kids see your every move and they will imitate it. Why? Because they see you get away with it and they think it's cool. When I was a kid, I loved playing sports and, like most kids, I would pretend to be my favorite player when playing. When I was playing baseball, I was Dwight Evans; when playing hockey, I was Mike Bossy; football, I was Dan Marino; and when playing tennis, I was John McEnroe. Yes, John ``I will yell at anything that does not go my way'' McEnroe. I won't kid around here, I liked him for one reason and only one reason, he could shoot his mouth off at anyone and get away with it. I thought he was the best thing since sliced bread, plus he was a good tennis player to boot. Talk with any of my childhood friends who would play with me, they'd probably tell you I put McEnroe to shame. I was bad. There was one time I was playing and I missed a shot on a critical point. Well, as critical a point as you can have when you are playing your friend in a park; but I wasn't a kid, I was John McEnroe and this was Wimbledon. Anyway, I went off on about a five-minute tirade, spewing forth any and every obscenity you can think of and then some. It was so bad that a lady who was clear on the other side of the park, came over and asked me to stop my mouth because she had her little children with her. I just brushed her off. After all, she was not my mother and besides McEnroe does it. Why couldn't I? Incidentally, this screaming after points became a habit with me whenever I played and continued through high school. So bad was it that I would almost get into fist fights with opponents from other schools. One time, during the state doubles championships, I was running my mouth so bad that my coach almost pulled my partner and I out of the tournament * * * and we were in the quarterfinals. Playing tennis the way John McEnroe did was the only style I came to know. Now, I'm not saying that all kids who imitate the bad behavior of professional athletes are going to behave that way for the rest of their lives. Nor am I saying that kids only pay attention to the conduct of unruly players, for there are far more players exhibiting the qualities of sportsmanship than there are not. What I am saying is that a player who screams and shouts when things don't go his or her way and gets away with it, may spark the interest of a child more than someone who just accepts the fate the sports gods lay out for them. I speak from experience here. So as we celebrate National Sportsmanship Day today, it would be nice if the not-so-sportsmanlike athletes of the nation would take the time to recognize the value of sportsmanship. If not for themselves or respected leagues, at least for the little Wayne Gretzkys, Pete Samprases, and Kerri Struggs out there.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair, and I thank the distinguished manager of this bill. Madam President, I wish to express my wholehearted support for Ambassador Barshefsky. In my dealings with her over the years, I have found her to be a skilled and certainly an expert trade negotiator, who has worked tirelessly on behalf of U.S. interests. I have no doubt as to her integrity and her commitment to this job. And I believe that view is shared by every single member of the Finance Committee, all of whom have worked closely with her. Thus, I urge my colleagues to support her nomination with a strong show of support in the upcoming vote. Before we vote on the nomination, Madam President, we must first vote on the amendment to Senate Joint Resolution 5 offered by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings. The amendment requires that any trade agreement that in effect amends U.S. law must be approved by Congress. I must say that this amendment puzzles me. Trade agreements to which the United States is a party and the call for changes to U.S. law, have no force of law whatsoever until implementing legislation is passed by Congress. Congress always has the final say. The USTR takes pains to ensure that Congress is involved in every step along the way in these trade negotiations. As a member of the Finance Committee, I can personally testify to the fact that the USTR provides regular and, indeed, frequent--indeed, in abundance, a plethora of--briefings on all of the international discussions. During 1995 and then again in 1996, the USTR provided literally hundreds of briefings to Members and more than a dozen committees on ongoing trade issues and responded to approximately 200 congressional requests for information every month. That is what was going on in the USTR's office. The Finance Committee staff is briefed exhaustively, as are the staff involved with several other committees. Any Member who has an interest in a particular issue can request personal briefings. That has been the process, not only during this administration but during prior administrations. It is the right process. Trade, obviously, is not solely the privilege of the executive branch but a responsibility conferred by the Constitution on the Congress. Do Congress and the administration always agree? Of course not. Indeed, if the disagreement is strong enough, the administration runs the risk of Congress flatly rejecting the arguments in question. Thus, in this process is the built-in enforcement mechanism that constantly keeps individuals in touch. So the amendment that is being proposed puzzles me. It does seem to reiterate current process but there are two words that give me pause. The words ``in effect.'' What exactly does ``in effect amend or repeal statutory law of the U.S.'' mean? Is it a reference to regulations? Regulations are issued under statutory authority. Is it a reference to the administration officials changing the law by themselves? But the Constitution does not allow that. Only Congress can change U.S. law. So it seems that the amendment may be aimed at the recently concluded telecommunications agreement and at certain provisions of that agreement. As I have outlined, the process of negotiating trade agreements takes into account the individual views of Members of Congress. The end results of trade agreements may include certain provisions that some of us do not like. I can clearly remember Senator Danforth of Missouri was not too pleased with the final provisions of the Uruguay Round on subsidies. He did not like it. Yet, he worked with the administration on the implementing legislation and at the end of the day chose to give the agreement his support. Disagreement with provisions of final trade agreements is going to happen. Clearly, with 435 Members of the House and 100 Members of the Senate, there are going to be disagreements with the administration. To minimize these, we individually or in groups make sure the administration is aware of our views. We go to the STR during the negotiating sessions and say this is what I am concerned with. This is what we are concerned with in my part of the country. And at the end of the day the agreement may or may not be satisfactory. If we feel strongly enough that it is not satisfactory, we are free to express our views, that is, vote against the proposal, vote against the treaty. So my conclusion, Madam President, is twofold. First, it simply is not clear what this amendment would do if it is enacted. Any legislation with an unclear meaning simply, in my judgment, is not wise legislation to enact. Second, if the amendment is to express displeasure with a particular provision of, say, the telecommunications agreement, we already have in place a system that takes into account such views. I might also note that I understand from the leadership of the Finance Committee if this amendment, the Hollings amendment, is adopted, it would cause the House to reject consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 5, thus placing the Barshefsky nomination in jeopardy. So this is a grave matter, Madam President. It is in the very clear interest of the United States to put in place as soon as possible a strong and effective special trade representative. In other words, Ms. Barshefsky. She needs to be on the job. We have a lot of trade discussions and disputes that are ongoing. Charlene Barshefsky is an absolutely superb advocate and we need to get her confirmed. So for these reasons, I am supporting the nomination and the waiver bill and cannot support the proposed amendment. So I urge my colleagues to reject the Hollings amendmentand to vote for the waiver and for the nomination of Charlene Barshefsky. I thank the Chair. Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senator from Missouri for his prime work on this piece of legislation. The money that goes into the highway trust fund this year will go out for transportation purposes next year, and I believe that is the right way to do things. It has varied from some of the other proposals that have been put in which provide that the accumulated interest of the accumulated principle of the fund be spent. We don't do that. We provide that what came in last year through taxes will go out the following year for transportation purposes. Mr. President, today I join as a cosponsor of the Highway Trust Fund Integrity Act of 1997. This legislation, sponsored by my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, and cosponsored by Senators Nickles, Cochran and Gregg, reestablishes the link between highway trust fund taxes and transportation spending. I believe that our proposal represents a reasonable and responsible solution to a problem that faces the Congress as it considers the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. I hope that this bill will serve as a starting point for further discussions with my colleagues, especially my colleagues from the Budget and Appropriations committees. I recognize that proposals that modify the budget process are by their nature, controversial, and upset the status quo. However, I think change is necessary and the status quo is no longer an acceptable outcome. The Problem As most of you are aware, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 split the Federal Budget process into two categories, one for receipts and mandatory spending and the other for discretionary spending. highway trust fund taxes, like other revenues, are in the mandatory category, but almost all highway spending falls within the discretionary category. Each budget category has its own rules, procedures, and incentives. Because the highway trust fund is split between these two categories, different parts of the highway trust fund are subject to different budget rules, and the link between the highway trust fund taxes and transportation spending is severed. Let me give an example of the problem the current situation causes. One would expect that increased highway trust fund taxes would make room in the budget for increased transportation spending. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Under the current rules, gas tax increases do make room in the budget for additional spending, but not for increased transportation spending. Under the current law, the only way to fund transportation programs at the level of highway trust fund tax receipts is by cutting other discretionary programs, such as law enforcement and education. We must reform the Federal budget process to correct this illogical outcome. The Solution Our proposal reestablishes the connection between highway trust fund taxes and transportation spending by putting the highway trust fund taxes and spending in the same budget category. ``The Highway Trust Fund Integrity Act of 1997" transfers all of the highway trust fund receipts and outlays into a new budget category that reflects the unique, revenue-constrained nature of the highway trust fund. This new category, called the revenue constrained fund, would have its own budget rules to ensure that transportation programs are fully-funded but deficit neutral. Under this proposal, spending from the highway trust fund would be equal to the highway trust fund tax receipts collected for the prior year. Spending would be limited to tax receipts in the prior year to guarantee that highway trust fund spending would never exceed actual receipts. If tax receipts into the highway trust fund are less than expected, transportation spending would be constrained, making the trust fund deficit-neutral. This bill does not create a new entitlement program. highway trust fund spending would be strictly limited by the amount of taxes deposited in the prior year thereby ensuring that the highway trust fund will be deficit neutral. Other entitlement programs do not have this guarantee. Trust Fund Balances One of the questions that has been raised regarding our proposal is how it treats the balances that now exist in the highway trust fund. Our proposal does not specifically address the status of the balances that now exist in the highway trust fund. In developing this proposal, we have attempted to focus on establishing a workable process for the future that reestablishes the connection between the highway trust fund taxes and transportation spending. We think we can develop a broad consensus on a proposal to spend the taxes deposited into the highway trust fund going forward. Such a broad consensus is not possible regarding the balances that now exist in the highway trust fund. There is significant disagreement about the validity of spending those balances, and our bill does not attempt to resolve this disagreement. Congressional Jurisdiction Another question that has been raised about our proposal is how this proposal would change the jurisdiction of the various committees in the Congress over the highway trust fund. Our bill does not change the jurisdiction among Congressional committees. It is our intention that all of the committees involved in setting transportation policy would continue to provide policy input and oversight for those areas currently under their jurisdiction. The tax committees would continue to play their role in setting tax rates of the highway trust fund; the authorizing committees would continue to play their role, including determining the program structure and distribution formulas for the formula grant programs, and the appropriations committees would continue to provide oversight and make decisions about the programs under their control. Under our proposal, the total amount of highway trust fund spending would be determined by the American people who pay the taxes deposited into the trust fund. Neither the authorizing committees nor the appropriations committees would determine the total level of spending. Transit In developing this legislation, we have focused on the programs and spending of the Highway Account of the highway trust tund. The highway account programs are under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee for which I serve as chairman. The bill we introduce today only addresses the highway account of the trust fund; it does not address the Mass Transit Account. However, as part of the ISTEA reauthorization, I believe a similar proposal should be developed for the transit account of the highway tust Fund. Senator Bond and I plan to work with transit advocates and members of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over transit programs, to craft such a proposal. The Highway Trust Fund Integrity Act of 1997 is a forward looking bill. It is consistent with achieving a balanced Federal budget by 2002. It does not take the highway trust fund off-budget, but it does address concerns that the bond between transportation taxes and transportation spending has been broken. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to congratulate the Senator from Missouri for his prime work on this piece of legislation. The money that goes into the highway trust fund this year will go out for transportation purposes next year, and I believe that is the right way to do things. It has varied from some of the other proposals that have been put in which provide that the accumulated interest of the accumulated principle of the fund be spent. We don't do that. We provide that what came in last year through taxes will go out the following year for transportation purposes. Mr. President, today I join as a cosponsor of the Highway Trust Fund Integrity Act of 1997. This legislation, sponsored by my colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond, and cosponsored by Senators Nickles, Cochran and Gregg, reestablishes the link between highway trust fund taxes and transportation spending. I believe that our proposal represents a reasonable and responsible solution to a problem that faces the Congress as it considers the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. I hope that this bill will serve as a starting point for further discussions with my colleagues, especially my colleagues from the Budget and Appropriations committees. I recognize that proposals that modify the budget process are by their nature, controversial, and upset the status quo. However, I think change is necessary and the status quo is no longer an acceptable outcome. The Problem As most of you are aware, the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 split the Federal Budget process into two categories, one for receipts and mandatory spending and the other for discretionary spending. highway trust fund taxes, like other revenues, are in the mandatory category, but almost all highway spending falls within the discretionary category. Each budget category has its own rules, procedures, and incentives. Because the highway trust fund is split between these two categories, different parts of the highway trust fund are subject to different budget rules, and the link between the highway trust fund taxes and transportation spending is severed. Let me give an example of the problem the current situation causes. One would expect that increased highway trust fund taxes would make room in the budget for increased transportation spending. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Under the current rules, gas tax increases do make room in the budget for additional spending, but not for increased transportation spending. Under the current law, the only way to fund transportation programs at the level of highway trust fund tax receipts is by cutting other discretionary programs, such as law enforcement and education. We must reform the Federal budget process to correct this illogical outcome. The Solution Our proposal reestablishes the connection between highway trust fund taxes and transportation spending by putting the highway trust fund taxes and spending in the same budget category. ``The Highway Trust Fund Integrity Act of 1997" transfers all of the highway trust fund receipts and outlays into a new budget category that reflects the unique, revenue-constrained nature of the highway trust fund. This new category, called the revenue constrained fund, would have its own budget rules to ensure that transportation programs are fully-funded but deficit neutral. Under this proposal, spending from the highway trust fund would be equal to the highway trust fund tax receipts collected for the prior year. Spending would be limited to tax receipts in the prior year to guarantee that highway trust fund spending would never exceed actual receipts. If tax receipts into the highway trust fund are less than expected, transportation spending would be constrained, making the trust fund deficit-neutral. This bill does not create a new entitlement program. highway trust fund spending would be strictly limited by the amount of taxes deposited in the prior year thereby ensuring that the highway trust fund will be deficit neutral. Other entitlement programs do not have this guarantee. Trust Fund Balances One of the questions that has been raised regarding our proposal is how it treats the balances that now exist in the highway trust fund. Our proposal does not specifically address the status of the balances that now exist in the highway trust fund. In developing this proposal, we have attempted to focus on establishing a workable process for the future that reestablishes the connection between the highway trust fund taxes and transportation spending. We think we can develop a broad consensus on a proposal to spend the taxes deposited into the highway trust fund going forward. Such a broad consensus is not possible regarding the balances that now exist in the highway trust fund. There is significant disagreement about the validity of spending those balances, and our bill does not attempt to resolve this disagreement. Congressional Jurisdiction Another question that has been raised about our proposal is how this proposal would change the jurisdiction of the various committees in the Congress over the highway trust fund. Our bill does not change the jurisdiction among Congressional committees. It is our intention that all of the committees involved in setting transportation policy would continue to provide policy input and oversight for those areas currently under their jurisdiction. The tax committees would continue to play their role in setting tax rates of the highway trust fund; the authorizing committees would continue to play their role, including determining the program structure and distribution formulas for the formula grant programs, and the appropriations committees would continue to provide oversight and make decisions about the programs under their control. Under our proposal, the total amount of highway trust fund spending would be determined by the American people who pay the taxes deposited into the trust fund. Neither the authorizing committees nor the appropriations committees would determine the total level of spending. Transit In developing this legislation, we have focused on the programs and spending of the Highway Account of the highway trust tund. The highway account programs are under the jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee for which I serve as chairman. The bill we introduce today only addresses the highway account of the trust fund; it does not address the Mass Transit Account. However, as part of the ISTEA reauthorization, I believe a similar proposal should be developed for the transit account of the highway tust Fund. Senator Bond and I plan to work with transit advocates and members of the Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over transit programs, to craft such a proposal. The Highway Trust Fund Integrity Act of 1997 is a forward looking bill. It is consistent with achieving a balanced Federal budget by 2002. It does not take the highway trust fund off-budget, but it does address concerns that the bond between transportation taxes and transportation spending has been broken. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important bill.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, when the Federal Government spends more than it collects in tax revenue, then it must borrow the difference. And when it keeps borrowing, that adds to the debt. When we have run up, as we currently have, a $5 trillion national debt, what we are really saying is that is a bill we are passing on to our children and our grandchildren to pay. Currently, for a family of four, the national debt amounts to $80,000, namely $20,000 for every individual in that family, all four individuals. As has been mentioned, the interest on the debt is now the third largest item in the Federal budget. This means that money we are spending on interest on the debt is not available for Head Start or health care or better education or improving our parks or all the things we want. So, Mr. President, this amendment, balanced budget amendment, which we are voting on will not solve all our problems, but it will be a big step forward, and I hope it passes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in favor of the resolution which will be before the Senate which would provide for early release of critical international population funds. Mr. President, I am deeply distressed by the erosion in the U.S. commitment to international family planning programs. Despite the fact that the United States played a lead role in the U.N. Population Conference in Cairo in 1994, and, indeed, we convinced other nations to increase their contributions to international family planning efforts, in the United States in the past year family planning funds were cut below 35 percent below the previous year, and then additional restrictions were added to that. So the net effect was the budget, which previously was $547 billion, has now shrunk to $72 billion this year. These cuts are devastating families around the world. According to a recent report released by the Rockefeller Foundation, in 1 year 7 million couples in developing countries will lose access to modern contraceptives, resulting in 4 million unplanned pregnancies. But here is the important part, Mr. President. As a result of lack of family planning and information in these countries around the world, 1.6 million of those unwanted pregnancies will end in abortion. That is the last thing we want. Tragically, the international family planning program which we are going to vote on at 2:30 has become bogged down over the debate about abortion. I am perplexed about this, Mr. President. Why should those who oppose family planning also oppose abortion? Or, to put it the other way around, why should those who oppose abortion oppose family planning? Study after study has shown that lack of family planning leads to more unintended pregnancies, which leads to more abortions. If we want to end abortions, reduce the number of abortions, it is clear that we should have greater family planning than we currently have. Let me illustrate this with an example in two countries. Russia. Russia has very little contraception available and abortion is the primary method of birth control. The average Russian woman has at least four abortions in her lifetime. I am absolutely shocked by that. Now let us look at Hungary. Hungary has made family planning services widely available and the abortion rate in that country has dropped dramatically. The impact these programs, that is, our family planning programs, have on the health and well-being of women and children around the world just cannot be denied. But there is another issue here that should not be overlooked, and that is the important role that population programs play in improving global environment or sustaining the environment of this globe which we are all traveling around on. Listen to these statistics. The Earth now supports 5.7 billion human beings. In 30 years, it is estimated that the world population will grow from 5.7 billion to 8.3 billion, a 46-percent growth in 30 years-- a 46-percent growth in the population of this world. We are growing by 86 million people a year; 90 percent of this increase will be in the so-called developing world. India, let us take India as an example. India has to feed an additional 16 million people a year, and so many of these additional people that we have in the world are children. And 40 percent of the population of the average less developed nation is under the age of 15. To say that this population explosion has put pressure on our natural resources is, of course, a terrific understatement. Over the past 50 years, the Earth is estimated to have lost one-fifth of its topsoil and one-fifth of its tropical rain forests, plus tens of thousands of plant and animal species so important to biodiversity. Overfishing in our oceans combined with pollution has resulted in the plundering of two- thirds of the fisheries of the world. Fifty years ago we had these fisheries. Two-thirds of them are now gone. Let us just take a look at Bangladesh. There are 120 million people in Bangladesh, crammed into a country the size of Wisconsin, and that number is expected to rise in this little country the size of Wisconsin, rise from the current 120 million people to 200 million in the next 30 years--200 million people in a country the size of Wisconsin. Overpopulation in that country of Bangladesh and upstream in the Himalayas has led to severe deforestation. The poor people there have cut down every tree in sight. They have used them for firewood. They have used them for building materials. They have tried to clear for farmland. With no trees to hold the topsoil in place, it simply washes away. Overcrowding has forced thousands of people in Bangladesh to settle on land that is nothing more than washed away topsoil deposits from the Ganges and Bramaputra Rivers. That sorry land of Bangladesh is horribly vulnerable to flooding and storm surges. One flood, in 1988, inundated three-quarters of the country, killing tens of thousands of people. Now, what can we do about all of this? First, we must focus on education in the developing nations, particularly female literacy. The statistics show absolutely that if we teach young women to read, everything else follows: Greater marriage, greater use of contraception, fewer and healthier children, better maternal health and a smaller likelihood of living in poverty. That is the first thing. Educate these folks, particularly the young women. Second, the developed nations should do everything they can to influence population growth because that leads to better maternal and child health. Poor health keeps a nation poor and undeveloped. Ironically, poor health even contributes to overpopulation. If parents can be certain that their children will survive, they will invest more in them emotionally and materially and feel less pressure to have additional children. So that is the second thing. Do everything we can to improve maternal and child health. Third, and most relevant to the matter before us today, the Cairo Conference stressed the importance of redoubling our efforts to increase access to family planning. In the 28 countries that have received the largest amount of family planning funds, the average family size has decreased 40 percent over the past 30 years--a 40 percent decrease in the average population size because of the family planning funds that have been distributed in those nations. Mr. President, the United States plays a critical role in providing family planning services abroad. I feel strongly we should continue our leadership role in this area. It is both humane and environmentally sound. I urge my colleagues to support the early release of these family planning funds. In other words, vote for the release of these funds, which we will do shortly after the noon break. Mr. President, I also hope that we can in future years increase the funding for these critical programs in our appropriations measures. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. Last year, the President signed into law bipartisan legislation that provides greater portability of health insurance for working Americans. Today, I join with my colleagues, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Frist, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Collins, in the introduction of a bipartisan bill that will provide some of the same guarantees for Medicare beneficiaries who buy Medicare supplemental insurance or MediGap policies. Of the 38 million Medicare beneficiaries, about 80 percent, or 31 million, have some form of Medicare supplemental insurance, whether covered through an employer-sponsored health plan, Medicaid or another public program, or a private MediGap policy. Our bill does several important things for Medicare beneficiaries who have had continuous coverage: First, it guarantees that if their plan goes out of business or the beneficiary moves out of a plan service area, he or she can buy another comparable policy. These rules also would apply to a senior who has had coverage under a retiree health plan or Medicare Select if their plan goes out of business. Second, it encourages beneficiaries to enroll in Medicare managed care by guaranteeing that they can return to Medicare fee-for-service and, during the first year of enrollment, get back their same MediGap policy if they decide they do not like managed care. Under current law, if a senior wishes to enroll in a Medicare managed care plan, he or she has two options. The MediGap policy may be dropped if the senior chooses a managed care program, or the individual can continue to pay MediGap premiums in the event that the policy is needed again some day--a very costly option for those on fixed incomes. Many seniors fear that if they lose their supplemental policy after entering a managed care plan, it may be financially impossible for them to reenroll in MediGap. Third, it bans preexisting condition exclusion periods for Medicare beneficiaries who obtain MediGap policies when they are first eligible for Medicare. Under current law, any time insurers sell a MediGap policy, they can limit or exclude coverage for services related to preexisting health conditions for a 6-month period. Fourth, it establishes a guaranteed open enrollment period for those under 65 who become Medicare beneficiaries because they are disabled. Under current Federal law, Medicare beneficiaries are offered a 6-month open enrollment period only if they are 65. There are approximately 5 million Americans who are under 65 years of age and are enrolled in the Medicare program. Currently, they do not have access to MediGap policies unless State laws require insurers to offer policies to them. Our bill provides for a one-time open enrollment period for the current Medicare disabled, which will guarantee access to all MediGap plan options for almost 5 million disabled Americans. It is true that this bill does not go as far as some would like. Our bill leaves to the states more controversial issues, such as continuous open enrollment and community rating of MediGap premiums. I believe, however, that this legislation will provide seniors similar guarantees to those that we provided to working Americans under the Kassebaum- Kennedy legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President. Last year, the President signed into law bipartisan legislation that provides greater portability of health insurance for working Americans. Today, I join with my colleagues, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Frist, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Collins, in the introduction of a bipartisan bill that will provide some of the same guarantees for Medicare beneficiaries who buy Medicare supplemental insurance or MediGap policies. Of the 38 million Medicare beneficiaries, about 80 percent, or 31 million, have some form of Medicare supplemental insurance, whether covered through an employer-sponsored health plan, Medicaid or another public program, or a private MediGap policy. Our bill does several important things for Medicare beneficiaries who have had continuous coverage: First, it guarantees that if their plan goes out of business or the beneficiary moves out of a plan service area, he or she can buy another comparable policy. These rules also would apply to a senior who has had coverage under a retiree health plan or Medicare Select if their plan goes out of business. Second, it encourages beneficiaries to enroll in Medicare managed care by guaranteeing that they can return to Medicare fee-for-service and, during the first year of enrollment, get back their same MediGap policy if they decide they do not like managed care. Under current law, if a senior wishes to enroll in a Medicare managed care plan, he or she has two options. The MediGap policy may be dropped if the senior chooses a managed care program, or the individual can continue to pay MediGap premiums in the event that the policy is needed again some day--a very costly option for those on fixed incomes. Many seniors fear that if they lose their supplemental policy after entering a managed care plan, it may be financially impossible for them to reenroll in MediGap. Third, it bans preexisting condition exclusion periods for Medicare beneficiaries who obtain MediGap policies when they are first eligible for Medicare. Under current law, any time insurers sell a MediGap policy, they can limit or exclude coverage for services related to preexisting health conditions for a 6-month period. Fourth, it establishes a guaranteed open enrollment period for those under 65 who become Medicare beneficiaries because they are disabled. Under current Federal law, Medicare beneficiaries are offered a 6-month open enrollment period only if they are 65. There are approximately 5 million Americans who are under 65 years of age and are enrolled in the Medicare program. Currently, they do not have access to MediGap policies unless State laws require insurers to offer policies to them. Our bill provides for a one-time open enrollment period for the current Medicare disabled, which will guarantee access to all MediGap plan options for almost 5 million disabled Americans. It is true that this bill does not go as far as some would like. Our bill leaves to the states more controversial issues, such as continuous open enrollment and community rating of MediGap premiums. I believe, however, that this legislation will provide seniors similar guarantees to those that we provided to working Americans under the Kassebaum- Kennedy legislation.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would appreciate it if the desk would inform me when I have spoken for 7 minutes. Mr. President, when I speak with Rhode Islanders I often find it very difficult to put the budget problems in perspective. Few, if any, of us understand what a billion dollars is, never mind what $1 trillion is But the current national debt of the United States is $5.3 trillion-- not billion dollars, not million dollars--trillion dollars. So we try to figure how can we put this in some form of perspective and what the national debt is. This is what we owe our children. And the national debt amounts to $20,000 for every American in our Nation, or a bill for a family of four of $80,000. Let me give you some idea of what $5 trillion is: $5 trillion is enough money to purchase every automobile ever sold in the United States and have enough money left over to purchase every airline ticket ever sold for travel in the United States. You buy all the automobiles that have been made in the history of the United States, and then you have money left over to buy every airline ticket that has ever been sold in the United States, and then you will have used up $5.3 trillion; $5 trillion is equal to the asset value of all the U.S. stocks held by Americans. If we went out to spend a dollar every second of every day to reach the goal of $5 trillion, it would take 158,000 years at a dollar per second. When the Federal Government spends more than it collects in tax revenue, it borrows the difference. This debt, obviously, is a liability for future generations. My children, your children, these young people here, the young people all over America are going to have to pick up the bill for what we spent that we didn't collect taxes for. And those who support a balanced budget constitutional amendment such as we have before us believe the Federal Government should do just like a family does. All families in America have to pay their bills. If they don't, they go into bankruptcy and go through a lot of extreme difficulties. But the Federal Government does not pay its bills. It does not collect enough in taxes to pay what we are buying. The Governor of California, Earl Warren, once said--I never forgot it--the people of California can have anything they want, anything they want, as long as they are willing to pay for it. And that should be the guiding rule for us in the United States. People might say, ``Well, sometimes you have to borrow some money.'' Sure you do. Thomas Jefferson borrowed $15 million to finance the Louisiana Purchase. And our Nation, obviously, had to borrow money during World War II in the 1940's to pay for that war. No one would argue with those decisions. But when we borrow money, we ought to pay it back and pay it back promptly. That isn't the way the Federal Government works today. Mr. President, what this balanced budget amendment is attempting to do is to say if we want something in the United States, then we ought to levy taxes to pay for it. And if we are not willing to levy the taxes to pay for it, whether it is better parks or better education or better health care or better protective services or a stronger FBI or better facilities for our Ambassadors and officials of our Foreign Service serving abroad, all of those things, maybe they are fine. And if they are and if the decision is that they are fine, then let us levy the taxes to pay for it. That is what this amendment is all about. Mr. President, I hope that this first step on a long road to balancing our budget will be undertaken. This, of course, does not say we are going to pay off that $5.3 trillion debt. But we will get started on it. First, we will not be adding to it every day of every year. Certainly, for the last 40 years we have spent more than we have taken in. That is why we have the $5.3 trillion deficit. Mr. President, I think that this balanced budget amendment is a good start. I hope it will be approved. I thank the Chair. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation which will allow the private sector to take a more active role in building and operating our Nation's highway infrastructure. The Highway Infrastructure Privatization Act will allow the private sector to gain access to tax-exempt bond financing for a limited number of highway projects. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Warner, Moynihan, and Bond, have agreed to join me in this effort. One needs only to venture a few blocks from here to see the terrible condition of many of the Nation's roads and bridges. Regrettably, the United States faces a significant shortfall in funding for our highway and bridge infrastructure needs. The investment need comes at a time when we in Congress are desperately looking for ways to reduce spending to balance the budget. State governments face similar budget pressures. It is incumbent upon us to look at new and innovative ways to make the most of limited resources to address significant needs. In the United States, highway and bridge infrastructure is the responsibility of the Government. Governments build, own, and operate public highways, roads, and bridges. In many other countries, however, the private sector, and private capital, construct and operate important facilities. These countries have found that increasing the private sector's role in major highway transportation projects offers opportunities for construction cost savings and more efficient operation. They also open the door for new construction techniques and technologies. To help meet the Nation's infrastructure needs, we must take advantage of private sector resources by opening up avenues for the private sector to take the lead in designing, constructing, financing, and operating highway facilities. A substantial barrier to private sector participation in the provision of highway infrastructure is the cost of capital. Under current Federal tax law, highways built by Government can be financed using tax-exempt debt, but those built by the private sector, or those with substantial private sector participation, cannot. As a result, public/private partnerships in the provision of highway facilities are unlikely to materialize, despite the potential efficiencies in design, construction, and operation offered by such arrangements. To increase the amount of private sector participation in the provision of highway infrastructure, the Tax Code's bias against private sector participation must be addressed. The Highway Infrastructure Privatization Act creates a pilot program aimed at encouraging the private sector to help meet the transportation infrastructure needs for the 21st century. It makes tax-exempt financing available for a total of 15 highway privatization projects. The total face value of bonds that can be issued under this program is limited to $25 billion. The 15 projects authorized under the program will be selected by the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. To qualify under this program, projects selected must: serve the general public; be on publicly owned rights-of-way; revert to public ownership; and, come from a State's 20-year transportation plan. These criteria ensure that the projects selected meet a State or locality's broad transportation goals. A revenue estimate for this legislation has not yet been completed, however we anticipate that the bill will not result in a revenue loss for the Federal Government. The projects that are candidates to participate in this pilot program are ones that are likely to be funded by tax-exempt bonds issued by State and local governments. Therefore, the bill should not result in an increase in the amount of tax-exempt bonds that will be issued. Furthermore, it is possible, depending on the efficiencies resulting from substantial private sector participation, that the bill actually would result in fewer bonds being issued and therefore would provide a revenue increase for the Federal Government. The bonds issued under this pilot program will be subject to the rules and regulations governing private activity bonds. Moreover, the bonds issued under the program will not count against a State's tax- exempt volume cap. This legislation has been endorsed by Project America, a coalition dedicated to improving our Nation's infrastructure, and the Public Securities Association. I hope that this bill can be one in a series of new approaches to meeting our substantial transportation infrastructure needs and will be one of the approaches that will help us find more efficient methods to design and to build the Nation's transportation infrastructure. I encourage my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important initiative.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation which will allow the private sector to take a more active role in building and operating our Nation's highway infrastructure. The Highway Infrastructure Privatization Act will allow the private sector to gain access to tax-exempt bond financing for a limited number of highway projects. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senators Warner, Moynihan, and Bond, have agreed to join me in this effort. One needs only to venture a few blocks from here to see the terrible condition of many of the Nation's roads and bridges. Regrettably, the United States faces a significant shortfall in funding for our highway and bridge infrastructure needs. The investment need comes at a time when we in Congress are desperately looking for ways to reduce spending to balance the budget. State governments face similar budget pressures. It is incumbent upon us to look at new and innovative ways to make the most of limited resources to address significant needs. In the United States, highway and bridge infrastructure is the responsibility of the Government. Governments build, own, and operate public highways, roads, and bridges. In many other countries, however, the private sector, and private capital, construct and operate important facilities. These countries have found that increasing the private sector's role in major highway transportation projects offers opportunities for construction cost savings and more efficient operation. They also open the door for new construction techniques and technologies. To help meet the Nation's infrastructure needs, we must take advantage of private sector resources by opening up avenues for the private sector to take the lead in designing, constructing, financing, and operating highway facilities. A substantial barrier to private sector participation in the provision of highway infrastructure is the cost of capital. Under current Federal tax law, highways built by Government can be financed using tax-exempt debt, but those built by the private sector, or those with substantial private sector participation, cannot. As a result, public/private partnerships in the provision of highway facilities are unlikely to materialize, despite the potential efficiencies in design, construction, and operation offered by such arrangements. To increase the amount of private sector participation in the provision of highway infrastructure, the Tax Code's bias against private sector participation must be addressed. The Highway Infrastructure Privatization Act creates a pilot program aimed at encouraging the private sector to help meet the transportation infrastructure needs for the 21st century. It makes tax-exempt financing available for a total of 15 highway privatization projects. The total face value of bonds that can be issued under this program is limited to $25 billion. The 15 projects authorized under the program will be selected by the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. To qualify under this program, projects selected must: serve the general public; be on publicly owned rights-of-way; revert to public ownership; and, come from a State's 20-year transportation plan. These criteria ensure that the projects selected meet a State or locality's broad transportation goals. A revenue estimate for this legislation has not yet been completed, however we anticipate that the bill will not result in a revenue loss for the Federal Government. The projects that are candidates to participate in this pilot program are ones that are likely to be funded by tax-exempt bonds issued by State and local governments. Therefore, the bill should not result in an increase in the amount of tax-exempt bonds that will be issued. Furthermore, it is possible, depending on the efficiencies resulting from substantial private sector participation, that the bill actually would result in fewer bonds being issued and therefore would provide a revenue increase for the Federal Government. The bonds issued under this pilot program will be subject to the rules and regulations governing private activity bonds. Moreover, the bonds issued under the program will not count against a State's tax- exempt volume cap. This legislation has been endorsed by Project America, a coalition dedicated to improving our Nation's infrastructure, and the Public Securities Association. I hope that this bill can be one in a series of new approaches to meeting our substantial transportation infrastructure needs and will be one of the approaches that will help us find more efficient methods to design and to build the Nation's transportation infrastructure. I encourage my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important initiative.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Chafee pertaining to the introduction of S. 275 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in accordance with the rules of the Senate, I ask that the rules of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, adopted by the committee January 28, 1997, be printed in the Record. The rules follow:

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I join in the congratulations both to the President, for having chosen Bill Cohen, and Bill Cohen, for making himself available. Bill Cohen is one of the really great Senators with whom I have had the privilege of serving in this body. As the Senator from North Dakota mentioned, he and I and others were part of a centrist coalition that was bipartisan, which reached across the aisle. We are going to see Bill Cohen conduct his office in the same fashion. It is going to be an office that will provide for all Americans. It is with great pleasure that I second the nomination of Bill Cohen for Secretary of Defense.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation which makes permanent the full value deduction for gifts of appreciated stock to private foundations. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senator Moynihan and Senator Abraham, have agreed to join me in this effort. Since 1984, donors have been allowed to deduct the full fair market value of certain gifts of public traded stock to private foundations. This provision of the tax code was added as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 to encourage individuals to create foundations during their lifetime. Unfortunately, when this section was enacted it included a sunset date of December 31, 1994 which was extended through May 31, 1997 as part of the Small Business Jobs Protection Act. Without this provision, the number of new foundations--as well as additional endowments to existing foundations--is likely to fall off dramatically. Private foundations are nonprofit organizations that support charitable activities in order to serve the common good. They provide support by making grants to other nonprofit agencies, or through operating their own programs. In some cases, such as scholarships and disaster relief, foundations may make grants to individuals. Foundations are created with endowments--money given by individuals, families, or corporations. They make grants or operate programs with the income earned from investing the endowments. Since most foundations have permanent endowments, they do not need to raise funds each year from the public in order to continue their work. Freed from these constraints, foundations are perfectly positioned to act as the research and development arm of society. In a 1965 Report on Private Foundations, the Treasury Department recognized the special nature of foundations by describing them as ``uniquely qualified to initiate thought and action, experiment with new untried ventures, dissent from prevailing attitudes, and act quickly and flexibly.'' Indeed, foundations reflect the innovative spirit of the individuals and corporations that endow them. There are more than 34,000 private foundations in America today that provide over $9 billion annually to support innumerable projects, large and small. Among other things, they help the poor and disadvantaged, advance scientific and medical research, and strengthen the American educational system. Let me give you a few examples of some of the medical advances that have occurred as a result of the financial assistance provided by private foundations: The polio vaccine developed by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 after the Sarah Scaife Foundation provided him with the money he needed to establish and equip his virus laboratory. With the help of the Commonwealth Fund, Dr. Papanicolaou discovered in 1923 that cervical cancer could be diagnosed before a woman presented any symptoms. That breakthrough led to the basic and now routine diagnostic technique known as the Pap smear. In 1951, Dr. Max Theiler received the Nobel Prize in medicine for his work in developing the yellow fever vaccine. That effort was the direct result of a 30-year, all-out commitment by the Rockefeller Foundation to eradicate this disease. But, Mr. President, private foundations have been involved in many more aspects of our daily lives than simply funding medical advances. Dr. John V.N. Dorr was an engineer in the early 1950's. He speculated that many accidents occurring on our Nation's highways during inclement weather were the result of drivers hugging the white lines painted in the middle of the road. Dorr believed that if similar lines were painted on the shoulder side of the road, lives could be saved. Dorr convinced transportation engineers in Westchester County, NY, to test his theory along a particularly treacherous stretch of highway. The dropoff in accidents along this part of the road was dramatic, and Dr. Dorr used his own foundation to publicize the demonstration's results nationally. Today, although State funds are now used to paint white lines on the shoulder side of the Nation's highways, every person traveling in motor vehicles is indebted to Dorr and his foundation for implementing this lifesaving discovery. As these examples indicate, private foundations provide a great many benefits to our society. By permanently extending this tax incentive, we can continue to encourage individuals to dedicate a substantial portion of their wealth to public, rather than private purposes. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. Our bill permanently extends the tax incentive for an individual who contributes stock to a private foundation. This provision currently expires on May 31, 1997. Under this bill, a taxpayer who contributes publicly traded stock to a private foundation would be allowed a deduction for the full fair market value of the stock. Absent this legislation, the deduction would be limited to the cost basis of the stock, which for many donors effectively eliminates the incentive to make the donation. The legislation also conforms the due date for a private foundation's first quarter estimated tax payment with the filing date for the annual tax return. Currently, a private foundation is required to make its first quarter estimated tax payment on April 15, even though the annual income tax return is not due until May 15. Under this bill, a foundation's first estimated tax payment would be due on May 15. Finally, the bill also simplifies the rules governing distributions from a private foundation to a charity located outside the United States. A similar proposal introduced in the 104th Congress was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $287 million over 5 years.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation which makes permanent the full value deduction for gifts of appreciated stock to private foundations. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Senator Moynihan and Senator Abraham, have agreed to join me in this effort. Since 1984, donors have been allowed to deduct the full fair market value of certain gifts of public traded stock to private foundations. This provision of the tax code was added as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 to encourage individuals to create foundations during their lifetime. Unfortunately, when this section was enacted it included a sunset date of December 31, 1994 which was extended through May 31, 1997 as part of the Small Business Jobs Protection Act. Without this provision, the number of new foundations--as well as additional endowments to existing foundations--is likely to fall off dramatically. Private foundations are nonprofit organizations that support charitable activities in order to serve the common good. They provide support by making grants to other nonprofit agencies, or through operating their own programs. In some cases, such as scholarships and disaster relief, foundations may make grants to individuals. Foundations are created with endowments--money given by individuals, families, or corporations. They make grants or operate programs with the income earned from investing the endowments. Since most foundations have permanent endowments, they do not need to raise funds each year from the public in order to continue their work. Freed from these constraints, foundations are perfectly positioned to act as the research and development arm of society. In a 1965 Report on Private Foundations, the Treasury Department recognized the special nature of foundations by describing them as ``uniquely qualified to initiate thought and action, experiment with new untried ventures, dissent from prevailing attitudes, and act quickly and flexibly.'' Indeed, foundations reflect the innovative spirit of the individuals and corporations that endow them. There are more than 34,000 private foundations in America today that provide over $9 billion annually to support innumerable projects, large and small. Among other things, they help the poor and disadvantaged, advance scientific and medical research, and strengthen the American educational system. Let me give you a few examples of some of the medical advances that have occurred as a result of the financial assistance provided by private foundations: The polio vaccine developed by Dr. Jonas Salk in 1953 after the Sarah Scaife Foundation provided him with the money he needed to establish and equip his virus laboratory. With the help of the Commonwealth Fund, Dr. Papanicolaou discovered in 1923 that cervical cancer could be diagnosed before a woman presented any symptoms. That breakthrough led to the basic and now routine diagnostic technique known as the Pap smear. In 1951, Dr. Max Theiler received the Nobel Prize in medicine for his work in developing the yellow fever vaccine. That effort was the direct result of a 30-year, all-out commitment by the Rockefeller Foundation to eradicate this disease. But, Mr. President, private foundations have been involved in many more aspects of our daily lives than simply funding medical advances. Dr. John V.N. Dorr was an engineer in the early 1950's. He speculated that many accidents occurring on our Nation's highways during inclement weather were the result of drivers hugging the white lines painted in the middle of the road. Dorr believed that if similar lines were painted on the shoulder side of the road, lives could be saved. Dorr convinced transportation engineers in Westchester County, NY, to test his theory along a particularly treacherous stretch of highway. The dropoff in accidents along this part of the road was dramatic, and Dr. Dorr used his own foundation to publicize the demonstration's results nationally. Today, although State funds are now used to paint white lines on the shoulder side of the Nation's highways, every person traveling in motor vehicles is indebted to Dorr and his foundation for implementing this lifesaving discovery. As these examples indicate, private foundations provide a great many benefits to our society. By permanently extending this tax incentive, we can continue to encourage individuals to dedicate a substantial portion of their wealth to public, rather than private purposes. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation. Our bill permanently extends the tax incentive for an individual who contributes stock to a private foundation. This provision currently expires on May 31, 1997. Under this bill, a taxpayer who contributes publicly traded stock to a private foundation would be allowed a deduction for the full fair market value of the stock. Absent this legislation, the deduction would be limited to the cost basis of the stock, which for many donors effectively eliminates the incentive to make the donation. The legislation also conforms the due date for a private foundation's first quarter estimated tax payment with the filing date for the annual tax return. Currently, a private foundation is required to make its first quarter estimated tax payment on April 15, even though the annual income tax return is not due until May 15. Under this bill, a foundation's first estimated tax payment would be due on May 15. Finally, the bill also simplifies the rules governing distributions from a private foundation to a charity located outside the United States. A similar proposal introduced in the 104th Congress was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost $287 million over 5 years.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, Senator Smith from New Hampshire and I have been working on this not only this year, but in past years also. I think after 7 years, it is time to fix this program. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent with very modest results, as far as cleanups go. This bill, which Senator Smith and I have submitted, addresses the so-called brownfields problem, for example. What are brownfields? They are contaminated sites, usually within our cities, which can be cleaned up relatively quickly and inexpensively and can be returned to productive industrial commercial use, thereby generating jobs and revenue. In this legislation, we deal with who will have to pay. Obviously, this is where the intense legal arguments have occurred, where you need to hire a hall because there are so many lawyers involved. We eliminate the unfairness of joint and several liability at most sites, and we replace it with proportional allocations where each polluter pays its fair share. We eliminate from liability anyone who legally sent waste to a municipal landfill. We eliminate small businesses and persons whose share was less than 1 percent and persons who sent less than 200 pounds or 110 gallons. In deciding how clean the cleanup ought to be, we take into consideration, what is the future use of the site going to be? Is it going to be for a children's playground, or is it going to be for a parking lot that is paved? Obviously, it makes a difference as to how clean the site should be cleaned up. Mr. President, this bill is not written in concrete. Senator Abraham, for example, is deeply concerned that we do not include here within our legislation tax incentives for brownfields cleanup in empowerment zones and in enterprise communities. Senator Abraham, who is deeply concerned about our inner cities and the jobs that will flow from it if these sites within the inner cities are cleaned up, believes there should be some tax incentives provided. We have not done that because of a cost problem, but we have assured Senator Abraham we will work with him to try to come up with the result that he seeks. I want to commend Senator Abraham for the work that he has done on this and the intense concern he has shown throughout the process of formulating this legislation. Mr. President, now I would like to turn it over to Senator Smith who has labored so hard in this vineyard, not only this year but last year. I do not think anybody in this Senate knows more about this legislation or has worked harder on it than Senator Smith from New Hampshire. Mr. BOB SMITH addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to stress the comments that Senator Smith made about a bipartisan approach. As I mentioned before, this is legislation that we worked on. We believe it is very, very good legislation. We are not saying it is the end all and be all. Obviously, in our committee we will have hearings on it. All the members of the committee will have a chance to have their views expressed. We look forward to contributions from the members of the Democratic Party who are part of our Environment Committee. It is our hope that when we come forward with a bill to present on this floor finally for consideration by the body, that it will come out unanimously from our committee, will have the support of the administration, and will fulfill the desires of all of us that this legislation become law. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Michigan is correct. The focus of the Environment and Public Works Committee will extend beyond the National Priorities List to include solutions to our national brownfields problem. And while my committee does not have jurisdiction over tax measures, I recognize the leadership exerted by Senator Abraham to address the problem of brownfields and I hope to work with him on a variety of solutions to the environmental problems faced by this Nation's communities.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Chafee and Mr. Smith pertaining to the introduction of legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.